[Truth To Power]

We have also seen that the models are making correct predictions.

No, the data are being altered to agree with the models.

[Truth To Power]

That’s cool. I have already disproven every single claim you have made in this thread.

False.

Now, the “evidence” that you and @Truth To Power “presented” for the conspiracy theory was a vague mention of Climategate.

Everyone knows what the climategate emails said.

Now, there were 8 separate inquiries or panels that investigated the supoosed scandal.

I notice you carefully said, "separate," and not "independent." Because you know they weren't independent, don't you?

All eight found that there was no evidence of a conspiracy or attempt to doctor data.

No, that's false. They only decided not to proceed with prosecution of the conspirators because the climategate email evidence was not considered unambiguous and conclusive enough.

So now we have disproved all the claims.

[Pants-of-dog]

Another evidence free post from @Truth To Power.

No doubt if he is asked to proovde evidence, he will say he already has provided it.

I think the important lesson in this is that the side that says global warming is real provides evidence to support the claims. The denialists do not.

[Decky]

My brother says the Israelis have a weather controlling machine so any attempt to control global warming is ultimately pointless.

[Truth To Power]

Another evidence free post from @Truth To Power.

As you know, I've provided evidence, including from YOUR OWN SOURCES. But unlike you, I don't think providing the same evidence multiple times constitutes more evidence.

No doubt if he is asked to proovde evidence, he will say he already has provided it.

Which is true. You really love poisoning-the-well fallacies, don't you?

I think the important lesson in this is that the side that says global warming is real provides evidence to support the claims. The denialists do not.

It's despicably dishonest to describe CO2 AGW skeptics as global warming "denialists." We all know, and do not dispute, that the earth has warmed since the Little Ice Age ended about 200ya. So global warming is certainly real. The question is whether it was caused primarily by CO2 or by the natural cyclical factors that also caused previous (very similar) Holocene warming periods like the Medieval, Roman, and Minoan warm periods. CO2 AGW screamers like PoD have never provided any evidence that the cyclical factors that caused the previous warming periods have ceased to operate, nor will they ever be doing so because we don't even know what those factors were. They simply ASSUME, WITHOUT EVIDENCE, that they have magically ceased to operate, because only by doing so can they concoct an argument that it could only be CO2 that caused the modern warming.

[Victoribus Spolia]

My brother says the Israelis have a weather controlling machine so any attempt to control global warming is ultimately pointless.

WTF?

Is your brother a black shirt or something?

[Decky]

WTF?

Is your brother a black shirt or something?

No, why?

[Victoribus Spolia]

No, why?

Because that sounds like something a fash would say; that the Jews control the weather.....

[Decky]

Because that sounds like something a fash would say; that the Jews control the weather.....

You clearly don't know great deal about the left (unsurprising since you don't have much of a left out in the colonies).

[Victoribus Spolia]

unsurprising since you don't have much of a left out in the colonies

Well, God is with us after all.

You clearly don't know great deal about the left

I suppose I don't, so you are telling me that neo-nazis/fascists have something in common with the left? Namely, a conspiratorial regard of the Jews?

[Pants-of-dog]

@Victoribus Spolia

Have you given up on your arguments in this thread?

[Decky]

I suppose I don't, so you are telling me that neo-nazis/fascists have something in common with the left? Namely, a conspiratorial regard of the Jews?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctors%27_plot

The Doctors' plot (Russian: дело врачей, "doctors' case", also known as the case of doctors-saboteurs or doctors-killers) was an antisemitic campaign organized by Joseph Stalin. In 1952–1953, a group of predominantly Jewish doctors from Moscow were accused of conspiring to assassinate Soviet leaders.[1] This was later accompanied by publications of anti-Semitic character in the media, which talked about the threats of Zionism and condemned people with Jewish names. Many doctors, officials and others, both Jews and non-Jews, were promptly dismissed from their jobs and arrested. A few weeks after the death of Stalin, the new Soviet leadership stated a lack of evidence and the case was dropped. Soon after, the case was declared to have been fabricated.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Have you given up on your arguments in this thread?

I already gave you my arguments and evidence, and you ignored them. You are doing the same thing with TTP.

@Decky,

[Pants-of-dog]

I already gave you my arguments and evidence, and you ignored them. You are doing the same thing with TTP.

@Decky,

No, I addressed all of your arguments, and refuted them all. With evidence.

TTP gave no evidence except to mention the word climategate. So I pointed out that 8 separate inquiries looked at the issue and found no evidence of TTP’s imagined conspiracies.

He then claimed that the inquiries were not independent, and provided no evidence.

But we are not discussing TTP. We are discussing your claims.

Since you are not addressing my posts where I refuted all of your arguments, I will assume you are no longer interested in supporting your claims.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Let me respond by quoting your own evidence-filled rebuttal:

I am not doing this again.

You continuously ignore actual evidence, refuse to support your claims with evidence, and make outlandish claims about conspiracies.

Until you support your claims and criticisms with actual evidence, there is no point in “debating” this with you.

_________________________________________________________

Or.....

Please provide evidence of your models using prehistoric hot-houses (which were paradisical by our standards) in their data collection and projections.

Thanks.

[Pants-of-dog]

So you missed the post where I discussed climategate, depsite the fact that I even pointed it out?

Your lack of reading is not a good criticism.

And I already pointed out how your misunderstanding of models is not an argument.

Again, are you claiming that the models were verified (by using hindcasting) only with eras after the last hothouse era?

Becasue your statements about models so far are literally nonsensical, and show a lack of comprehension concerning models.

[Victoribus Spolia]

So you missed the post where I discussed climategate, depsite the fact that I even pointed it out?

Your lack of reading is not a good criticism.

I am not defending climate-gate. I am arguing from the assumption of climate change and global warming as legitimate phenomenon (even if I don't necessarily believe in them ).

And I already pointed out how your misunderstanding of models is not an argument.

Again, are you claiming that the models were verified (by using hindcasting) only with eras after the last hothouse era?

Becasue your statements about models so far are literally nonsensical, and show a lack of comprehension concerning models.

Yes, you've made this claim that I don't understand models, which is an ad-hominem and is not supported by evidence.

I argued that I could see no data or reference to the prehistoric hot-houses in the links you provided, you have failed to refute this challenge.

Thus, there is no reason to see your "evidence" as relevant.

Based on induction, previous hot houses were paradisical with warmer temperatures and greater bio-diversity at much higher rates of atmospheric CO2.

Your model is irrelevant unless it does not account for these periods and this claim by the OP must be specifically addressed as to why the inductive evidence is not applicable to future hot-house states.

No such argument has been presented. NONE.

[Pants-of-dog]

I am not defending climate-gate. I am arguing from the assumption of climate change and global warming as legitimate phenomenon (even if I don't necessarily believe in them ).

I never said you were defending climategate.

You claimed I did not address TTP’s claims. I pointed out that I did.

Were you talking about my rebuttals of your claims?

Yes, you've made this claim that I don't understand models, which is an ad-hominem and is not supported by evidence.

I argued that I could see no data or reference to the prehistoric hot-houses in the links you provided, you have failed to refute this challenge.

This is because I never provided links for your models claim. I provided links for other claims. I pointed this out to you already.

Thus, there is no reason to see your "evidence" as relevant.

Based on induction, previous hot houses were paradisical with warmer temperatures and greater bio-diversity at much higher rates of atmospheric CO2.

Your model is irrelevant unless it does not account for these periods and this claim by the OP must be specifically addressed as to why the inductive evidence is not applicable to future hot-house states.

No such argument has been presented. NONE.

I have already addressed this.

In fact, I have addressed all of this.

Do tou need me to repeat it for you?

[Victoribus Spolia]

I have already addressed this.

In fact, I have addressed all of this.

Do tou need me to repeat it for you?

Yes, please do.

[Pants-of-dog]

Models themselves do not "mention or cite" different eras in the past.

The only way these past eras are related to models is if these eras were included in the list of previous climates with which the models were tested.

Such a list would be included in the description of the tests used to verify the quality of the model.

So your statement that the models themselves do not mention these previous eras sounds weird.

Now, are you claiming the models were verified using only previous climates from after the last hothouse era ended?

There you go.